Now that the election is finally over, I intend to get back to writing on a variety of various topics, rather than focusing almost entirely on political issues. Of course, I will not be able to avoid the occasional political-oriented rant from time to time, but those will be more sporadic than before. Tonight I wish to write on a topic inspired by a movie I recently saw.

When traveling on a plane from New York to California, one is in for a very long ride. Luckily, most airlines show a movie or two along the way to help the time go a little bit faster. If the movie isn’t one that looks completely terrible or that I have already seen (and don’t wish to see again), I usually watch it. After all, watching a movie certainly helps to pass the time. A few weeks ago, one of these movies was the romantic comedy, “13 going on 30”.

This film starred Jennifer Garner as a 30-something woman who was 13 until one day when she made a wish that she was 30. So suddenly, she’s 30; she missed out on about 20 years of her life; and she has a job at a magazine that seems a lot like “People”. The movie basically served as a female version of the early Tom Hanks film, “Big”. Big, however, seemed a little bit better, but “13 Going on 30” wasn’t completely terrible – it had its moments. But I do not mention this film in order to critique it.

Instead, I want to address a theme that this, and many other films, often have in common: the bad person becoming nice. You know the story. The movie starts and the audience sees Joe acting like a complete jerk. Then, something happens in the story. Suddenly, Joe has a revelation and decides to abandon his jerky ways and become a really sweet guy. Sometimes the jerk is the main character, and other times the main character helps to reform a jerk. This is especially common in the films where the good girl successfully tames the “bad boy”.

So what’s my beef with the jerk-becoming-nice theme? It’s just so unrealistic. Don’t get me wrong. It would be really nice if this kind of stuff happened in real life, it just never does. Let me explain a bit.

Think, if you will, about a jerk that you know. Now, try to imagine that person as a really sweet person. It doesn’t work, right? That’s because being a jerk is this person’s very essence. If this person wasn’t a jerk, s/he would not know what to do with himself/herself. Being a jerk isn’t a choice; it’s a way of life.

But perhaps you remain unconvinced. Okay, let’s try something else: think about back when you were in high school or college. Now think about two or three of the biggest jerks you can remember. If you have seen any of these people subsequently (a number of years later), have they changed? I’d be willing to bet that they haven’t.

So what causes this? Why do jerks stay jerks? I think the major reason this occur stems from the fact that they know that they bask in their jerkness. I think it’s exceedingly rare that someone is truly hateful or obnoxious and doesn’t realize that people would view them in this way. They like being jerks. The media and entertainment industry has made it abundantly clear what type of person is considered nice. Unless this jerk lives under a rock, s/he should have a pretty good idea of what behavior would necessitate his/her seeming to be nice or pleasant. Thus, it should come as no surprise that s/he does not act in this way.

One last example. How about some non-jerk characteristics. What are some behaviors that nice or pleasant people exhibit? Nice people hold the doors for others; nice people offer to trade their seat with a woman who wants to sit with her children on a plane; nice people don’t litter. So if someone never holds the door for others, fails to trade seats with a woman wanting to sit with her children, and throws his/her Starbuck’s cups in the street, then s/he should have some clue that s/he is a jerk.

Since jerks tend to know that they are jerks, they would actually have to truly want to change the way they are to become a nice person. While the sudden revelation in films causes this change, in real life such revelations don’t really happen. But even if they did happen, I don’t think that they would lead to the change that they do in the movies. Why? Because changing is hard. If you’re a jerk trying to become nice, you will have to change your entire way of life. Suddenly you are going to have to be courteous in most situations and reevaluate entirely the way you communicate with others. When’s the last time you ever heard someone do such a thing? Probably never. Ya know why? Because jerks don’t change.

And that’s fine. The world needs jerks. Imagine how odd it would be if everyone in the world was nice. It would be like we were stuck in the Disney World ride “It’s a Small World” – it would be torture. If it wasn’t for jerks, we wouldn’t be so happy when we found people who were nice. Jerks, while annoying, make life challenging and interesting. This is why jerk bosses sometimes actually end up causing more professional growth than nice bosses. They might be jerks, but you hate them so much that you don’t want to give them an opportunity to be a jerk when it comes to the work you do, so you go above and beyond what you might otherwise do. Now I’m not saying jerks are great; they’re still generally pieces of crap. All I’m saying is that the world wouldn’t be the same without them.

Have you ever noticed that flavored tea never tastes as good as it smells?

I suppose with all of the political theory that I seem to spew into this journal, I ought to at least give some thoughts and perspectives on the outcome of the election. So since it’s still fresh in everyone’s minds, I figure I should do this sooner, rather than later. But what I intend to do here will not be to give my opinion on the outcome of the election; instead, I will explain why things turned out the way they did, and then predict some possible consequences that may result.

So first, how did Bush manage to pull it off? To be honest, although I had assumed that he would win, I thought that the election would be much closer. If you would have told me that Kerry would be delivering his concession speech by 2pm the next day, I would have thought you were crazy. Yet, Bush managed to win by 3.5 million votes. That’s a lot.

Bush was terrible in the debates, as he tends speak poorly. He has had terrible luck with the economy, as he took office during the beginning of one of the worst recessions we’d seen in quite some time (Thanks to Alan Greenspan and the terrorists.). He has had terrible luck with national security, as just 8 months after taking office, terrorists killed thousands on September 11th. Finally, he brought troops into Iraq based on some retrospectively less-than-stellar intelligence information. Most people who do not know any better would blame Bush for most, or all of these things. And as we all know, most Americans do not know any better. So how did it happen that he was re-elected, despite all the problems that the U.S. saw during his administration?

I think the main reason is quite simple: Fear. Kerry scared the hell out of people. And no, I’m not just talking about the fact that he head is irregularly long. People just didn’t trust Kerry to protect them from the terrorists. Kerry, as we know, began his career in politics as an anti-war activist. Sure, he claimed to be a born-again hawk, promising to kill terrorists, but when people see clips of him protesting Vietnam and then hear him talking about a “global test” in the debates, his hawkish claims seem kind of empty. Whatever Bush’s faults, however, virtually no one would say that he wouldn’t be willing to do whatever it took to use military action for whatever necessary to squash terrorist threats.

So that’s the first, and probably largest, piece of the puzzle: people’s fear and their needing to insure their safety. Safety is one of the three most important human needs (along with food and shelter). And since most Americans have the other two, safety becomes the deciding factor.

But there had to be more than that, and there was. The second thing that actually led to the Bush win was, believe it or not, his claiming to be more conservative than he actually is. Bush really isn’t all that conservative. I know that many would scoff at such a claim, but it’s true. This nation has never seen a Republican spend money on programs the way that Bush has. A conservative Republican taking office after someone like Bill Clinton would have made their first move to kill at least 25% of the excessive spending that the Clinton administration created, but not Bush. He actually created more programs and encouraged more spending. So Bush really isn’t that conservative.

Yet, how could someone who does not appear to be that conservative claim to want a constitutional ban on gay marriage? While the majority of republicans probably agree with such a ban, surely very few liberals do. But if they show up to the polls, the Republicans are voting for Bush anyway. Why would he want to alienate himself further from liberal voters?

The answer to this is so subtle that not even I figured out what he was doing until the election was over. Bush knew that nothing he did or said would get the liberal voters to vote for him: they hate Bush. Instead, Bush realized that, right now, the vast majority of Americans do not support gay marriage. As a result, he would first have some swing voters swing over to his side if they knew that Bush was dedicated to this issue. But apparently Bush knew something else. I had mentioned a second ago that if Republicans show up to the polls, they’ll vote for Bush. They key word in that statement was “if”. Bush needed to give such conservatives an extra incentive to show up at the polls. A constitutional ban on gay marriage was that incentive.

I have to say, it was really quite brilliant. This probably, single handedly, won Bush Ohio. The news outlets all say that the Evangelist Christians showed up in record numbers to vote for Bush because of this, and the fact that Ohio also had a ban on gay marriage on the ballot. A smart candidate does this: he makes the people who should support him feel strongly aligned enough with his platform that they are determined to give him their vote. It looks like Bush is a little smarter than any of us thought.

I really think that safety and values explain, almost in entirety, why Bush won. Sure, some people like low taxes or thought Kerry was a phony, but these reasons pale in comparison to the main two. So Bush won, rather soundly. And that’s not all: there was substantial gains in the Senate and modest gains in the House for the Republican Party as well. These gains can be attributed to approximately the same reasons as the Bush victory.

Okay, so what have we got: Bush in office, with a solid win, beating Kerry by 3 points, with more popular votes than any other presidential candidate in the history of the U.S., and being the first candidate to receive a majority of the votes since his father in 1988 – this is the very definition of a mandate. The Senate is now 55% Republicans. Republicans rule the house by approximately 30 representatives. It’s almost overwhelming.

What’s next? More legislation in the next four years than we have ever seen a president pass in our lifetime. This is Bush’s last term, and he has huge majorities in both Houses of Congress. I’m pretty sure that no Republican in the past 50 years has had that kind of ease in passing legislation. There is literally nothing stopping him or the other Republicans. Anything he wished he would have passed the first four years will probably be easily pushed through Congress in his very first year.

Then, of course, there is the issue which was largely ignored by virtually everyone during the 2004 campaigns: the Supreme Court. In my opinion, as a result of my knowledge of Constitutional law, I believe that, through ignored, this issue could be the most substantial thing that voters should have considered when voting. Of course, very few probably did.

Why is it so substantial? We are currently in a time when we have had the longest period ever without a Supreme Court Justice retiring. Experts predict that as many as 4, but probably at least 2 or 3, judges will retire over the next four years. Right now, the court is extremely moderate, since four judges always take the strict interpretation of the constitution; four judges always take the loose interpretation of the constitution; and the last sides with the latter four, even though she should probably know better. Of course, this is the same as saying that there are four conservatives, four liberals, and Sandra Day O’Connor.

Those who will retire are probably not going to be all from the conservative camp. Although at least one or two may be, even if one liberal Justice or O’Connor retires, and Bush replaces him/her, then suddenly the court has shifted completely. This is important because virtually every landmark case that the Supreme Court has made over the past 20 years has been decided by one vote. We’re talking about things like abortion and affirmative action. Replace just one liberal judge with a conservative judge, and suddenly, both will be outlawed.

Is this likely to happen? Probably. There is already talk of Rehnquist retiring this year, due to cancer. Although he is relatively conservative, Bush will likely nominate one of the more conservative judges like Thomas or Scalia to take over for him. But perhaps a liberal judge will be next. Then it really begins. I would not be particularly surprised if, four years from now, abortion is up to the states, instead of being federally mandated. Of course, this isn’t quite as scary as abortion rights activists probably think, as you can still get an abortion as long as you go to a sufficiently liberal state like Vermont, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, or California. But there’s little doubt that a conservative court will make some big changes, even if abortion isn’t one of them.

The bottom line: This isn’t last term’s Dubya. This Dubya has a mandate from the people; far more allies in the House and Senate; and the chance to reshape the Supreme Court for a generation or two. If you’re a conservative, this should get you more excited than the thought of Ann Coulter in a bikini; if you’re a liberal, this should get you more frightened than the thought of Ann Coulter in a bikini. But either way, no one can dispute that America will look a bit different four years from now. I can only wonder how it will all turn out.

How do you think Michael Moore feels about all of this?

I plan to write about a few separate issues in regard to Social Security in this journal. But because I do not enjoy writing entries that last more than 3 pages, I suppose that I must write about these issues on separate occasions. I do not, at this time, have the foggiest clue when the next installment of my Social Security thoughts would occur, but it doesn’t matter much, as no important relation exists between the two issues which I plan to write about. The topic that I intend to address at a later time consists of my wish that Social Security would end altogether. Today’s entry, however, explains why it never, ever, will.

Right now, I don’t care where you stand on the topic of Social Security. Maybe you think it’s good; maybe you think it’s bad. I happen to think it’s a bad idea, but nonetheless, I find it rather indisputable that it will never end. The reason for this stems from the way that the government organizes Social Security.

Shortly after his/her birth, each U.S. citizen receives a Social Security number. Mine is 392-82-3857. Just kidding – you don’t really think I’d give out my Social Security number on a public website do you? Anyway, every citizen of the U.S. has one of these 9-digit numbers. I suspect that this number really only becomes useful in its intended sense when you begin receiving Social Security benefits. Yet, you get this number nice and early, so that there’s no mistake that one day you will receive the benefits.

Don’t worry – I wouldn’t make such a ridiculous claim that just because you have such a number that the government must pay out your Social Security to you. There is hardly a contractual obligation, or anything of the sort, which would constitute this scenario. The cause of Social Security’s eternal continuance involves far more subtlety: The government needs you to have that number.

Before I explain the details of this argument, I would like to state that, for the record, this realization did not come to me, but to my girlfriend with whose permission I recount it here. To understand the essence of my argument, imagine a nation without Social Security. Such a nation would also have citizens with no Social Security numbers.

If such a nation existed with no Social Security numbers, then the government of that nation would have no way in which to keep track of its people in an efficient and effective manner. Without Social Security numbers, they would have to use names, which, let’s face it, definitely seems to be a flawed system, considering many people have exactly the same names. Social Security numbers allows each person to be identified with a unique number, just like computers and cars have unique serial numbers.

I’m no conspiracy theorist, but I can see a certain interesting convenience in the government issuing people Social Security numbers as a kind of sure-fire way to insure that no one slips through the cracks and goes unaccounted for or gets lost track of. Our Social Security numbers act as far more than a number which will some day be written on a monthly check that we receive in the mail: it’s a way for the government to identify us. Without this number, the government would be at a loss for a good way to do so.

I know what you’re thinking: The government could just do away with Social Security and assign us identification numbers instead. Sure, that would work, but there’s only one problem: we’d have no incentive to care about this identification number. The beauty of a Social Security number is that the government issues them immediately so that they stay with you for your entire life before you can actually use it for your benefit. But without that number, you won’t be able to cash out your Social Security benefits in old age. Thus, it’s pretty important that you keep your Social Security number at least in the back of your mind until that time.

The government has likely made this realization before. They probably understand just how tough of a situation it would be for them if politicians eliminated Social Security. They need Social Security because it provides probably the most effective situation imaginable to issue identification numbers without people feeling like they are merely a number in the government’s eyes.

So what’s the moral of this story? Don’t be fooled: if a political party threatens that if you vote for their opponent s/he may try to end Social Security (despite the vehement denial of that opponent), that political party is either lying or naïve. For better or for worse, Social Security will always be a part of our lives and culture here in the U. S. But surprisingly, the reason for this has nothing to do with taking care of the elderly.

Isn’t it sad that someone as politically opinionated and well-informed as myself has been disenfranchised by his job?